The British naturalist Charles Darwin gave examples of variation within the same species of particular animals and thought they supported his theory of evolution. This slight variation is called microevolution. It’s the reason there are different races of people. Some species, such as dogs, have a broad gene pool and are able to produce many varieties or breeds. They all originated from a single type of dog, and new types of dogs appeared when some of the genetic information was shuffled. In some animals this shuffling of genes has led to what are considered new species. When a group of animals are separated from their parent population they may, over time, lose some of the genetic information needed for them to procreate with that group they were separated from. But genes never transform into different genes because the DNA code restricts it. (Genes are segments of the DNA molecule.)
Macroevolution, as opposed to microevolution, teaches that primitive life consisted only of single-celled organisms that kept mutating until our planet was populated with the complicated life-forms we see today. Darwin proposed this theory in 1858, but it wasn’t until the 1860s that the principles of genetics had been discovered. Moreover, this discovery went unnoticed until the early 1900s when the science of genetics was established. Modern science has shown that mutations are just recombinations of already existing DNA and that they don’t lead to new genetic information. This isn’t something Darwin knew when writing The Origin of Species, in which he admitted, “Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part differs, more or less, from the same part in the parents.” Not even knowing what caused the minor differences between parents and offspring, he was in no position to try explaining the major differences between all the world’s species. He didn’t know it was genetics that caused variation in species, much less that his theory was genetically impossible. Had he known about genetics, he probably wouldn’t have married his first cousin and had children with her. This inbreeding caused health problems for some of the kids.
If you think the fossil record supports evolution, think again. There were no fossils to verify Darwin’s theory when he proposed it, and there are still none today. Only a few fossils have been found that are of suspected transitional life-forms. The most famous of them is Archaeopteryx, a bird with some reptilian characteristics. There have been several good arguments for it being a fake, but I’m going to overlook this and just tell you why it means nothing even if it’s genuine. Its wings are complete with feathers and have no scales, so it lacks the undeveloped features that would accompany a truly transitional form. Archaeopteryx is no more of a transition between reptiles and birds than the bat is a transition between birds and mammals. Billions of fossils of various species have been found, and not one of them is midway between two different animals (or plants).
When it comes to human evolution, its only “evidence” consists of a small portion of bones and bone fragments. This is why evolutionists are still searching for that “missing link.” As for Neanderthals (cavemen), they were only humans with rickets and arthritis. It wasn’t even that long ago when some of them lived. In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found buried in Poland. It was wearing a suit of chain armor that hadn’t fully rusted (“Neanderthal in Armor,” in Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). In 1910 another Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippines, a place with so much moisture that it couldn’t have been more than a century old (“Living Neanderthal Man,” in Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176). Also, claims that the hobbit was a separate species were weakened when, in 2006, miniature human bones were found in the island nation of Palau (“Little Doubt,” in Popular Science, June 2008, p. 15). By the way, having a tailbone (coccyx) doesn’t make you related to other primates. It’s attached to numerous muscles at the pelvis and is needed for walking upright. You would be more similar to other primates if you didn’t have a tailbone.
The theory of evolution revolves around ignorance and deception. It’s a disgrace to science that biology textbooks are still using false information to deceive people into accepting this myth. We read that humans, as well as animals, have vestigial organs that were once useful in evolutionary ancestors. As science advances, it’s being discovered that these organs serve a purpose after all. One of them is the appendix. Once thought to be useful only for helping our allegedly distant ancestors digest grass, it’s now known to aid us in digestion by keeping reserves of the kind of bacteria needed for it. The Darwinists who admit this will merely assert that the appendix evolved to take on a new purpose. A more disturbing attack on science is the teaching that human embryos have gill slits in the throat, meaning we are descendants of fish. These “gills” are folds of skin that have no openings in them, so don’t let your imagination run wild.
To add to the falsehoods taught by evolutionists are the drawings made by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s, which depict three stages of development in the embryos of some different species. They all look very similar and are lined up together to show that they share a common ancestor. What the textbooks don’t tell you is that the similarities were faked. Some of the embryos from different classes were even printed from the same woodcut. More deceptive still, what Haeckel claimed were the early stages of development in the animals depicted were actually the midpoints of development. The embryos look much different from each other in their earlier stages, which aren’t included in the drawings. This is a serious blow to the theory of evolution because Darwin asserted that embryos being the most similar in their early stages indicates common ancestry.
Another of evolution’s fraudulent arguments is that nearly all of England’s peppered moths used to be light-colored because the dark-colored moths were more easily spotted on tree trunks by hungry birds. Then, in the 1800s, new factories blackened these tree trunks with soot, causing the dark-colored moths to blend in with the new environment. So, we’re told, the dark-colored moths survived to reproduce, while the lighter moths declined in number. I hate to break it to Darwinists, but a population-change in the varieties of moths within the same species is not evolution. What’s more, those pictures in biology textbooks that show peppered moths resting on tree trunks were staged. They rest only on the twigs and branches of trees. They also come out only at night when birds are sleeping.
The foundation of evolutionary theory is that organisms with beneficial mutations survive and reproduce, while those with harmful mutations will become extinct. This is called “natural selection.” I could believe this happened with the peppered moths (assuming I didn’t know it was made up), but a mere change in color wouldn’t convince me that beneficial mutations resulted in my body’s many interconnected parts. Try telling some Darwinists that a bunch of guys with no knowledge of mechanics randomly put auto parts together until a car was assembled. They would ridicule you, even if you used their method of reasoning to say these guys kept selecting the least disordered apparatuses to add parts to until they got it right. They should find this believable considering their body’s “random” design is far superior to that of any car. I will tell you about the cooperation between just four organ systems in your body. The respiratory system uses oxygen to get energy from food that has been broken down by the digestive system. Both oxygen and food are absorbed by the blood and carried throughout the body by the circulatory system, which, in turn, couldn’t function without the energy it receives from these other two systems. The nervous system tells these systems (and all others) how to operate, but couldn’t do so without food and oxygen.
There must have been a massive number of species that became extinct before random accidents, I mean, natural selection, got things right. Primitive animals would have needed useless organs and organ systems just waiting around, for who knows how long, until other organs and organ systems evolved a way to work with them. A heart, for example, would be useless without blood and blood vessels. These parts of the circulatory system couldn’t have evolved simultaneously, nor could the parts of any other system simultaneously evolve and immediately cooperate with each other. The construction of an organ system would require a lot of trial and error (especially when no intelligence is involved), and even a complete organ system could do nothing for an animal prior to its interconnection with other organ systems. Our alleged ancestors had to have had anatomies composed mostly of useless parts for a very long time, so where are all of the animals today with parts they don’t need? It’s extremely naïve to think that all of the parts in animals today evolved a useful function, and somehow there are no nonfunctional parts remaining. Remember, evolution is a random process. It would have produced far more useless parts than ones that could actually serve a purpose. Yet animals today don’t have these extra parts that would give credibility to the theory of evolution.
If evolution never happened, life had to have been created because all complex organisms need all of their parts functioning since day one. If you separate a plant from its roots, it will wither and die. Take away one of the systems that make up an animal’s anatomy, and it will die too. If complex organisms did not evolve from simpler ancestors, they could only be here because they originated with the same complexity they have today, and that requires a Creator. Darwin thought a Creator wasn’t needed if “simple” cells, the building blocks of all living things, progressed upward to make more complicated life-forms. He had no idea that cells are anything but simple. Scientists these days think of them as factories, but scientists in Darwin’s day thought of them as globs of goo. They thought life was so simple that bacteria were spontaneously generated from nonliving matter. (In the early 1860s, a few years after Darwin proposed his theory, the French chemist Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only living things can produce living things. Then, in 1876, the English physicist John Tyndall conducted another experiment that also showed only life can produce life. His results, combined with Pasteur’s, stopped the teaching of spontaneous generation.)
The fact that Darwin thought single-celled organisms could arise spontaneously is probably the reason he didn’t explain the origin of cells in his The Origin of Species. He only tried explaining how new life-forms evolved from simpler life-forms that already existed. In this 1859 book of his he wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Thanks to new and improved microscopes, the biochemist Michael Behe was able to challenge this with what he calls “irreducible complexity.” The parts inside the cell couldn’t have gradually evolved because they have always needed each other. The only way for a cell to survive and reproduce is if it has all of its parts, all working correctly from the very beginning of its existence. There is no room for trial and error, which is exactly what evolution teaches.
Just like a high-tech factory, each and every cell uses digitally encoded information to operate its machinery. Nothing in the world stores information more efficiently than DNA, and it’s this miraculous structure inside the cell that contains its digital data. Of course, DNA by itself is as useless as a CD-ROM without a computer. Proteins are needed to translate DNA’s instructions , but proteins can’t be made without the instructions from the DNA. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem, and it gets more complicated. A molecule that’s similar to DNA, called RNA, is needed to copy DNA’s instructions and carry them to a machine called a ribosome. The ribosome uses the information to build protein from amino acids. All of these factors make a cell irreducibly complex. (There’s more to it than this, but that pretty much sums it up.)
Knowing that irreducible complexity is a problem for them, evolutionists have suggested that RNA could have come first and performed the job of both DNA and proteins before evolving. While experiments have shown that simple RNA sequences can replicate on their own, they can perform only a few of the thousands of tasks that proteins perform. Besides, an RNA-first hypothesis does not explain the origin of biological information. To make my point, I’d like to tell you about an organization called the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). It searches for radio waves from outer space that are too organized to be random. If a SETI radio telescope picked up a signal that qualified as having an intelligent source, the skeptics would not argue that it’s random. They would be looking for a way to prove an intelligent person on Earth created it to dupe people into believing life exists elsewhere in the universe. Now here’s the point I’m making: if a SETI radio telescope picked up a signal anywhere near as organized as either DNA or RNA, it would EASILY qualify as having an intelligent source.
Evolutionists want you to think modern science has proved their theory, but the opposite is true. Spontaneous generation has been debunked, and it is now known that the cell resembles the work of an engineer. Ignoring this, they continue to insist that life came about all by itself. They proclaim that after the cell mysteriously popped into existence and figured out how to replicate itself, cells came together to make tissues, which haphazardly assembled organs, which inadvertently arranged themselves into organ systems, and these highly coordinated organ systems somehow started working together to form extremely complex organisms. More fantastic still, they assure us that animals evolved a respiratory system that takes in oxygen and gives off carbon dioxide, while plants conveniently evolved a method for taking in that carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen for animals. It is more than just unlikely that evolution could have done all of this. It is utterly impossible.
Copyright © 2011